Like new if you time traveled from the 50s We literally conceived of a bazooka launched personal nuke. Generally speaking not much was actually made by anyone and is unlikely to have been maintained as they would have been deemed basically useless for decades as is very expensive to maintain.
Well TIL. I though they couldn’t make them that small back then. But anyway, the russians were producing the latest version of small tactical nukes in the 20 teens. Those are pretty new.
The logic behind not using them is either they can’t or they can’t. They didn’t kill a million russians and junk a fair chunk of their existing hardware for nothing. The reasonable perception is that they couldn’t take Ukraine and fight NATO at all whereas without NATO assistance historical or current Ukraine would have actually fallen in 3 days. Their ability to take Ukraine is therefore 100% a function of how well they can keep NATO out of it and nuking Ukraine blows that objective.
Well, what I was saying is they “could”, and thus they are technically holding back. So thier failure to take Ukraine doesn’t prove they can’t take on Nato minus the US. And even now, it is still technically NATO, including the US. So their inability to take it isn’t the same as taking on NATO without the US. I don’t know if Ukraine could have held up without US money and such. Not sure the EU had enough to spare at the time. I know the EU is looking to increase production to reduce it’s reliance on the US, but I am not sure how far they have gotten.
Like new if you time traveled from the 50s We literally conceived of a bazooka launched personal nuke. Generally speaking not much was actually made by anyone and is unlikely to have been maintained as they would have been deemed basically useless for decades as is very expensive to maintain.
Well TIL. I though they couldn’t make them that small back then. But anyway, the russians were producing the latest version of small tactical nukes in the 20 teens. Those are pretty new.
The logic behind not using them is either they can’t or they can’t. They didn’t kill a million russians and junk a fair chunk of their existing hardware for nothing. The reasonable perception is that they couldn’t take Ukraine and fight NATO at all whereas without NATO assistance historical or current Ukraine would have actually fallen in 3 days. Their ability to take Ukraine is therefore 100% a function of how well they can keep NATO out of it and nuking Ukraine blows that objective.
Well, what I was saying is they “could”, and thus they are technically holding back. So thier failure to take Ukraine doesn’t prove they can’t take on Nato minus the US. And even now, it is still technically NATO, including the US. So their inability to take it isn’t the same as taking on NATO without the US. I don’t know if Ukraine could have held up without US money and such. Not sure the EU had enough to spare at the time. I know the EU is looking to increase production to reduce it’s reliance on the US, but I am not sure how far they have gotten.